the Trump administration He quietly implements a plan aimed at killing hundreds of ban on highly toxic PFAs “chemicals forever” and other dangerous compounds in consumer goods.
Ban, A large extent at the state levelTouch most aspects of daily life, and prohibit everything from Bisphenol in Children’s products To mercury in Personal care products To pfas in Food packaging and clothes.
If it succeeds, it is certain that the audience will be exposed to much higher levels of chemicals associated with a set of serious health issues such as cancer, hormone disorder, liver disease, heart defects, and damage to the reproductive system, says the opponents of the plan.
The Trump Environmental Protection Agency step includes changing the agency’s method of chemical risk assessments Brigade checks On toxic chemicals in consumer products.
The plan can significantly decline to California effective The proposal 65 law, and the end of the federal ban can be spent, including the early 2024 ban on asbestos.
“This will increase the health risks of consumers by exposing them to toxic chemicals,” said an environmental agency employee.
“The market also allows toxic chemicals to continue, because it maintains the financial incentive to be made for all these consumer products.”
Although the risks of most chemicals in individual consumer products are often low, the audience is usually exposed to a wide range of toxic substances throughout the day, and these daily excesses combined in the long run are serious health risks.
The industry has greatly succeeded in getting rid of the federal borders on chemicals in consumer products, in part due to the fact that its public health advocates have Parts of the Environmental Protection Agency have been captured. However, during the reign of Joe Biden, the agency began to put some ban, such as the use of formaldehyde in consumer goods, including leather.
PFAS is among the most used and toxic chemicals in consumer products, and many countries do not reach the chemical category. Maine in 2021 a ban passed Pfas For all unnecessary uses, while about 15 Sent states are a set of prohibitions for clothes, menstrual products, cooking tools, food packaging, stadium equipment and cosmetics, among other goods.
Massachusetts and Contecticut Prohibited PFAS in firefighting equipment after firefighters demanded to move in response to high cancer rates associated with chemicals.
Behind PFAS, Washington has banned cooking tools; Nevada has banned flame inaugules in children’s games; Maryland has banned some philanthropic in cosmetics, among other works.
“The states are on the front lines, and they may ascend because societies want these laws,” said Sarah Doll, the safest director of the safer states, which leads to restrictions at the level of the state to toxic chemicals. “People do not want toxic chemicals in their homes. They do not want firefighters to be exposed to PFAs in fire foam.”
The state laws are also effective because they are Pressure The industry is to stop using dangerous chemicals. PFAS is banned for use in California, Colorado and other states, so it makes sense for producers to stop using chemicals instead of producing some of the clothes that you are treated with and some are not processed.
The 3M chemical giant has announced that it will stop making PFAS partially because the state laws that prohibit chemicals are complicated.
After promoting the newsletter
The effectiveness of the laws and pressure on the industry list put them, and the Trump Environmental Protection Agency provided a base to reformulate how risk assessments are made.
Biden EPA stated that if there is any specific use of chemicals – clothes, cosmetics, or food packaging, for example – it represents an “unreasonable danger”, then the entire chemical must be considered a risk. The states can regulate chemicals that are unreasonable risks.
The new Trump base for the Environmental Protection Agency requires the agency to evaluate whether the chemical exposes a risk to all intended use. Formaldehyde, for example, has 63 use. The Environmental Protection Agency said the agency plans to demand most of the chemicals that do not pose an “unreasonable danger” in consumer goods because it constitutes a small part of the products.
The industry recorded a great victory in rewriting the laws of the nation about the 2016 toxic chemicals by working in a item saying if the Environmental Protection Agency finds that the material does not represent an “unreasonable danger”, then the states cannot write laws that prohibit or limit their use.
“A large number of consumer products will exclude from considering risk management,” said Environmental Protection Agency.
They added that individual television may have a small amount of PFAS, “but when it produces 50 meters of TVs, it adds” – especially for the environment, or to the workers they produce.
However, the laws will not come into effect overnight. The Environmental Protection Agency, with its limited employees, must organize one chemical at one time, and the process may take three years. Meanwhile, more state laws will be passed, and pressure on goods will continue to stay away from toxic chemicals in installation, as a doll said.
“The market is moving, adapting and creating … within three years, it will already turn into a major impact,” she added. “It is a possible threat, but I do not think it will have a chilling effect on the countries that respond to the demands of societies on the land that says:” We are dealing with this challenge. “
